No return to paternalism

In your recent Think tank article ("Can we break in, please?", 31 October, page 31), I was surprised to read Jane Loftus' response to the query.

Her reply seemed to typify the attitude towards tenants that prevailed 15 years ago – that landlords in the public or quasi-public arena had a right to interfere in the affairs of their tenants to a degree to which owner-occupiers would rightly object.

Although there may be some truth in her view that the householder may require assistance, it is more important that public tenants be given the same courtesy as any other occupier who may wish to refuse access.

To take the view that a landlord should break in on the basis that they are looking after the tenant's best interests is patronising and open to abuse.

I understand the presumption behind Loftus' response – that failure to respond to a request for access should be considered as a possible sign for concern, but this should not be treated in the way that she describes.

It may simply be an indication that further investigation is required. "Vulnerable" residents in every sector should certainly be cared for through warden services, floating support and vigilance among those working in the public services, but we need to treat people with respect and dignity whatever their background, age or circumstances.